In this week’s column I return to a topic I have discussed many times over the years – Irish Defence. Though there are some signs that things may be about to improve, the pace is no where near fast enough. The Minister responsible is more pre-occupied with positioning and messaging, than on tackling the real problems. We see this in his hands off approach to the current Defence Bill. You can also listen to the accompanying Podcast, it also includes a short review of Eamon Ryan’s leader’s address at last weekend’s Green Party conference.
It’s deeply frustrating to tune in to TV or Radio debate on Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality and the Triple Lock and then hear the case for both being argued by people who seem far more interested in criticising the U.S. or the E.U. or the very concept of military defence.
Take last Wednesday’s Tonight Show on Virgin Media TV. On the panel were Deputies Dr Cathal Berry and Mick Barry and Dr Karen Devine. While the producers may have anticipated that Dr Devine and Deputy Barry would be making the case for military neutrality and the retention of the Triple Lock (and I accept the risk of using these two phrases as if they were interchangeable) I heard precious little from either one on the actual case for both.
It is frankly ridiculous to expect Deputy Barry to make the case for the Triple Lock when believes that Ireland should not increase defence spending on any kind of arms or military equipment, which he terms: “weapons of war” and that we have never been neutral as successive Irish governments “give as much political and, where possible, practical support to…” “…imperialist power blocs.”
While Dr Devine is the author of a major PhD thesis (2007) on the values and identities underpinning the public’s support for Irish neutrality, she is no proponent of the existing policies. She argues that the public back “neutrality”, not ‘military neutrality’ and that successive Irish governments, since we joined the EEC/EU in 1973, have pursued the EU’s collective defence agenda.
Neither Dr Devine nor Deputy Barry could reasonably be viewed as advocates for Irish military neutrality, or for the triple local mechanism that underpins it, as they do not accept that they have served any purpose.
So why frame a debate on Irish military neutrality and then fail to platform anyone to defend it?
Hence my frustration. But my frustration is not with the producers at Virgin Media, it is with the manner in which the debate around Irish defence policy has been framed. Much of the fault for this poor framing, though by no means all, lays with the person responsible for Irish Defence policy, the Minister for Defence, An Tánaiste Micheál Martin, T.D.
That fact that I might feel the need to criticise Mr Martin will come as no shock to anyone who has read one of my previous articles or listened to a podcast. Indeed, a Fianna Fáil press officer told the Irish News last week that a comment I made to that paper was “nothing more than a continuation of his long-standing criticism” of the party he resigned from four years ago.
So, why am I having yet another pop at Micheál Martin? It is because I fear his perceived activism is doing more damage to Irish defence policy than the studied passivity and neglect of his Fine Gael predecessors – a case I have made here many times, including this piece from November 2022.
Mr Martin tells us that he has changed his mind on Defence policy. Precisely when and where his Pauline conversion happened is unclear, though there are hints to suggest that it is fairly recent. Back at the time of the February 2020 election, his position and that of Fianna Fáil was very clear. Page 138 of his party’s manifesto was unambiguous:
Fianna Fáil reaffirms its commitment to the retention of the Triple Lock of UN mandate or authorisation, Government and Dáil approval, prior to committing Defence Forces personnel on overseas service.
This deep seated commitment was untainted by the Programme for Government negotiations with Fine Gael or the Green Party as the 2020 PfG, states on page 115 that:
The Government will ensure that all overseas operations will be conducted in line with our position of military neutrality and will be subject to a Triple Lock of UN, Government and Dáil Éireann approval.
No ambiguity or change of outlook there. So, let’s fast forward two years to this November 22, 2022 Dáil response from then Taoiseach Micheál Martin:
The Government has no intention of changing its current policy in respect of military neutrality. There is no galloping towards new alliances or anything like it. The Deputy [ Mr Boyd Barrett] consistently makes that false assertion in the House, but that is not the case.
This reply was made some months after the Putin’s brutal assault on Ukraine. So, it would appear that was not the trigger for the change in policy. What we can glean from Mr Martin’s comments since early 2023 is that his change of mind on the Triple Lock is down to the UN Security Council’s (UNSC) difficulties in either agreeing or renewing UN peacekeeping mandates. Mr Martin explicitly made the case in his Business Post op-ed of November 2023:
“we also need to reflect on the reality of the world we face today, including the systemic challenges facing the UN Security Council, which directly impact on our role in international peacekeeping. This is most apparent… with not a single new peacekeeping mission authorised by the Council since 2014”.
He is correct. The Putin veto that prevents UNSC from mandating new peace support operations is a real crisis. It is not one we can or should ignore.
But is erasing the UN and our commitment to the multilateral approach from our domestic process the only available response?
As I have previously pointed out the Triple Lock mechanism of Government and Dáil approval along with UN mandate dates back to the earliest days of Irish Peacekeeping and the 1954 and 1960 Defence Acts.
Though the actual legislation itself is the most inelegant…
2.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force may be despatched for service outside the State as part of a particular International United Nations Force if, but only if, a resolution has been passed by Dáil Éireann approving of the despatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service outside the State as part of that International United Nations Force.
(2) A contingent of the Permanent Defence Force may be despatched for service outside the State with a particular International United Nations Force** without a resolution approving of such despatch having been passed by Dáil Éireann, if, but only if—(a) that International United Nations Force is unarmed, or
(b) the contingent consists of not more than twelve members of the Permanent Defence Force, and the number of members of the Permanent Defence Force serving outside the State with that International United Nations Force will not, by reason of such despatch, be increased to a number exceeding twelve, or
(c) the contingent is intended to replace, in whole or in part, or reinforce a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force serving outside the State as part of that International United Nations Force and consisting of more than twelve members of the Permanent Defence Force.
**the expression “United Nations Emergency Force” means an international force established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations for the performance of duties of a police character.
… the rationale underpinning the legislation is most principled.
This is how Taoiseach Sean Lemass introduced the 1960 Act during the Bill’s Second Stage debate in December 1960:
Furthermore our own Constitution proclaims, as an aspiration of our people, concord with other nations, and, in Article 29, solemnly affirms Ireland’s “devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations, founded on international justice and morality.”
The Government are convinced, and I believe that this view is shared by all members of the House, that it is in the best interests not only of this country but of the world generally that we bend all our efforts to the attainment of these objectives and to the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs.
It will hardly be contested that the United Nations represents the best—indeed, the only available—instrument in existence for channelling such activities. As we see it, therefore, it is not only our moral duty but in our national interests to support the growth of the influence and power of the United Nations, to acknowledge its right and function to act in any situation in any part of the world that may endanger peace, to encourage action under its auspices in such circumstances, and to be prepared where necessary to contribute from our resources to the fulfilment of these responsibilities by the United Nations.
This was less than 16 years after the end of WWII. It was in the midst of a Cold War with both Washington and Moscow pointing countless ICBMs at each other. You had an Iron Curtain across the eastern half of Europe.
There is nothing neutral or isolationist in Lemass’s words. He sees Ireland as having a clear role in establishing the rule of law in international affairs. With hindsight some may see his view that “…the United Nations represents the best—indeed, the only available—instrument in existence,” as naïve, but it was principled. It was also unashamedly premised on what was in our national interests.
But as Mr Martin has pointed out, the exercise of the veto mean UNSC is unable to mandate further UN peacekeeping missions, which directly impacts us as our troops may only deploy overseas on missions with a UN mandate and only the UNSC can mandate these.
A few weeks ago, we withdrew from the UNDOF mission on the Golan Heights. It is about a decade since I was on Morning Ireland arguing strongly for our continued participation in this mission. The government decision to quit a long-established UN peacekeeping operation was made following “an assessment of the sustainability of the Defence Forces’ overseas commitments.” The government statement announcing the decision went on to state that:
“The withdrawal of troops from UNDOF will also relieve ongoing challenges in respect of the filling of certain specialist roles in overseas deployments.”
Translation: we simply don’t have enough personnel or resources to fulfil our defence commitments.
Our withdrawal from UNDOF was not due to a Russian veto, but to a decade long neglect of defence. Scrapping the Triple Lock does not make it easier to deploy overseas, especially when we have neither the personnel nor resources to sustain the mission on which we already serve.
Would it not be wiser to address the actual reason for our withdrawal?
Almost two years into his term as Defence Minister the Tánaiste announced today that Defence capital spending will increase to €215 million next year and to €220 in 2026. From memory the 2024 capital spend was about €175million.
€40 million extra in 2025 is a 22% increase. This is welcome. But there is almost a decade of under investment to fix and promising €40 million extra next year, but only €5 million extra the year after is not enough. For over two years we have had, in the report of the Commission on Defence, the blueprint for increased defence investment, but the government is only shuffling towards its implementation.
750 personnel were discharged in 2023 and 415 personnel were inducted. The 2024 budget only provides for the recruitment and training of a net additional 400 enlisted personnel this year.
That does not even keep pace with the numbers leaving. To be fair, when it is fully operational, the Gormanstown joint induction centre, which started accepting recruits last month, will enable the training of 900 recruits per annum. This too is most welcome. But even at this rate it will take a decade to get Defence force strength up to 9,500… never mind the 11,500 by 2028 recommended by the Commission on Defence.
Scrapping the Triple Lock will do nothing to make the very real and sadly worsening recruitment and retention crisis disappear… but could it be that those around the Minister hope that talking about getting rid of the Triple Lock may deflect attention from the bigger problems?
The abuse of UNSC veto must be addressed and Ireland, as a nation with a strong record of supplying UN peacekeepers, should be to the forefront in leading that campaign. We often hear Irish politicians repeat the words of President John F Kennedy from his 1963 Dail Éireann address:
The major forum for your nation’s greater role in world affairs is that of protector of the weak and voice of the small, the United Nations. From Cork to the Congo, from Galway to the Gaza Strip, from this legislative assembly to the United Nations, Ireland is sending its most talented men to do the world’s most important work—the work of peace.
Well, let us give a modern-day expression to that praise and lead other small nations in a move to reform the UNSC. There is no shortage of ideas from Liechtenstein’s 2020 veto initiative, to the Elect the Council group to the report of the Australian Federal parliament on structural UN reform, to the triggering of the Uniting for Peace resolution.
None of these routes are easy. None are guaranteed success, but they have the merit of keeping the aims of establishing the rule of law in international affairs, something the Tánaiste’s proposal does not.
As I have observed before, though I strongly support keeping the Triple Lock mechanism, I do not fetishise it. It is a policy and like all policies, it should be regularly reviewed and reformed where necessary, as happened with the 1993 and 2006 Defence (Amendment) Acts. These updated the operation of the Triple Lock to align with the UN’s greater reliance on regional organisations to lead peacekeeping operations, as opposed to the traditional blue helmet ones.
I would wholeheartedly support a move to amend or reform the third element of the Triple Lock to reflect the problems at the UNSC. A starting point could be the fact that the 1960 Act defines a “United Nations Emergency Force” as meaning an international force established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations. The 2006 Act widened this to say that:
“International United Nations Force ” means an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations;”
Could we expand the definition further to allow deployment of 12 or more, under arms, as part of a multi-lateral force that was not mandated by a UNSC resolution, but was supporting a UN General Assembly resolution?
Simply scrapping the third element of the Triple Lock is not reform. It merely removes the criteria for overseas deployments and replaces it with nothing. Ahh… say advocates but we will still have a double lock. This ignores the fact that these two locks (Cabinet and Dáil approval) are effectively opened with the same key. No government would approve a deployment at cabinet that it did not feel it could whip through the Dáil with its own deputies.
This is precisely the moment when, as the rules-based international order is crumbling, Ireland should be looking to offer an “active stance that is outward-looking, pro-peace, able to weather shocks, and useful to the international community.”
These are the words of Professor Roger McGinty of Durham University, in his 2023 article: Ireland: The value of foreign and security policy quirk. Prof McGinty was a participant in last year’s Consultative Forum on International Security Policy.
Rather than having sham fights over the Triple Lock and EU Defence Bonds which our Finance Minister says he will oppose (in the same way that his department has long opposed Irish defence expenditure, I suppose), let us have a proper political discussion on Defence. Only this time conduct it within political parties.
Maybe then, we will end up with implementable Defence policies founded on firm, political support, not leadership caprice.
derekmooney.ie 